recently i played with ZzUu and that raised a point of using artillery at multiplayer battles.that was cause of our match at the Pyramid (large map) when he forced to atatck me after my lobby fired to his elves (he initially wanted to defend cause of elves). as result of few good/lucky shoots and my rush he was defeated but argues me "what about i just ran away from range of your lobby and wait for you".so i want to discuss it

depending of the map, most of the time its possible to place your artillery to allow it shoto at enemy (if artillery is hided enemy doesnt usually know that u have it and feel free to place units close). if arty is not hided dependign of the opponent he may place it either too far or as close as possible to rush.

i accept 2nd point but dont accept 1(and attempts to get armies stay away from the range of lobby IF he wants to stay and wait my forces), and its because:1) i think we all there to play a game and for the battle. and we stay there not for the winning but for the nice games. and games ARENT nice if you want to force weaker army to attack (w/o lobby support) and then crush single lobby.2) for the historical and other "locigal/strategic" issues (like Flak's opinion about he never want to stupid rush but for the tactic) i think that any army which has artillery unit mostly supposed to be a defensive army (and its true in DO also cause they artillry is immobile).that measn that for various reasons defender is HAVE to defend to deflect agressor. and thus, troops which dont have arty unit logically should be attackers.

i dont mean that all attacker armies should rush. absolutely not.they allowed to manoeuvre, get some units out of range if they want to "save" it or w/e, but there should be situation when army without artillery will wait and dont attack.

as for situation where there is arty in both armies - i dunno. then you both should decide who will atatck first.

what do you guys think?

Logged

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

An army that is able to get outshot is pretty much forced to be the attacker by default; as much as I hate to you a Magic: The Gathering analogy, its true of every wargame that doesnt feature exactly identical lists. One 'deck' is always going to be the 'beatdown' and the other deck the 'control'. The army that can stay back and shoot is control because its slow and conservative is 'Control', and the one that has to be fast and aggressive is 'Beatdown'. Which one your army is varies from game to game. In the example given, ZzUu expected to be Control and all his opponents to be Beatdowns, but he was outplayed (because thats what it is) right from the beginning when Alavet took a list which is better at Control. Thus as much as he may not like it, he was outplayed and is now the Beatdown. The onus is on him to play fast and more aggressive, because the longer the game goes on the more it favours Control.

In essence, whilst ZzUu can sit out of range and not fight, he cannot win by doing it; Alavet wins because he has the army to fight that kind of battle, he cannot lose it. Its like in the Japanese sword art of Iaido (think thats the one), where you can actually win a competitive match without even drawing your sword if your set and composure is better than your opponents!

Thats not to say that shooting/war machines alone decides Control/Beatdown; you could have an entirely melee army that can decide the tempo, especially if its fast or numerous enough. Because of how DO is set up Mortars and to an extent Lobbas are dominating enough that its very hard to be Control; but for example a human army with lots of fast units can severely restrict their enemy's options if the enemy doesnt act aggressively to deny them their speed.

I dont know if I really have a point to this as far as coming up with rules 'forcing' people to be attackers and defenders, and I think those terms are too rigid to apply. Even if he didnt know the exact terms/theory, ZzUu was able to identify that he was not Control (as hoped) but was the Beatdown, and he acted accordingly. He didnt win, but thats not a result of Control being 'better' than Beatdown, he was just beaten; one of the ways he was outplayed was (presumably) in army selection and also his preconception of what role his army would play, but thats only 2 factors out of many. He already knows by running away he's playing to not lose, he has no possiblity of playing to win by running, at some point he need to get aggressive. Otherwise he's relying on his opponent choosing to give up his position of Control, which the opponent is under no obligation to do! Even then he could still lose.

In a tournament situation, ZzUu would have essentially refused to play and conceded the game by running, in which case he forfeits the game if it is judged that he was indeed the army which couldnt win a stand-off. A bit like Iaido

As I said, im not sure I have a concrete point, its just an interesting ramble

A very tricky subject Alavet.Your standpoint that these games are supposed to be fun, and first and foremost be enjoyable for all players is without question, and one that I agree to most wholeheartedly.

But it is my opinion that to force artificial rules, like one about who must attack or even those we already have about lone mages are in the long run counterproductive. And dare I say, most ungentlemenlike. The more rules about what can and can't be done on the battlefield will only reinforce the notion that this game is about winning and not about having fun. Any mention of such a rule in the heat of battle will unescapably turn into a personal affront, thus lessen the fun for both players greatly!

That we have rules regarding how we build armies is a different matter altogether. This stems from the fact, that I am sure is apparent to all, that the game of Dark Omen is not perfectly balanced in Multiplayer.This is the tool, and in my opinion the only tool that we ought to use, to correct imperfections and to ensure that the players enter battle on as equal footing as possible!

The inherent fault with artillery in Dark Omen is that in the confined space of the game it is far too reliable for its cost.

But this defect can be delt with, we just haven't found the perfect solution yet.

The balancing rules that are in place is as far as rule making should go.

When the battle starts then its down to the 2 players, to play their tactics, if both armies are defensive then its up to the fast thinking and patience of the 2 players to see who will make the first move and see who is best able to convert from defensive to offensive. I think the random map rule should eliminate the possibility of player being too defensive.

Artillery in dark omen is a double edged sword, if the map is small and the enemy can start too close then they wont have time to work, if the map is big then they can shoot the enemy to bits. It all a gamble

Logged

"There is only one way out of hell, thats through it" -- General Patton

"Just because a mage wears the Black Robes, does not make him evil." -- Raislin Magere

Artillery in dark omen is a double edged sword, if the map is small and the enemy can start too close then they wont have time to work, if the map is big then they can shoot the enemy to bits. It all a gamble

at this point i refuse to see DO as a gamble. its tactic (and yeah some luck in dices)

i personally would be VERY angry if some1 will wait and stay out of my mortair range and wait my army come. i think 2 or 3 such cases and i actually will really hate such players and maybe game at all. i dunno why but its really affects me such way. so i guess im not alone with that.

thankfully most of our players already little aged men (i guess 20= at least) so i still hvnt seen such cases but i be very sad if i see such.

i may udnerstand if he want to stay when he also have arty - thats ok and i happily atatck him at this case. but going out of range is similar liek some1 comment about hit-n-run pistoleters or teleporting mage. it really ruins the game.

Logged

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

1) my assumption is that our arty units already balanced by poitns and gold. i mean since we allow them to be on the battlefield and give them some amount of points it means we agree that using them is OK

2) another assumption that i think is obvious: once you have arty but cannot use it (out of range) that measn strenght of your army is reduced by the arty cost (or little less since you may use it after your army most likely be defeated)

so in usual case if i use lobber and enemy placed his army out of range and dont come its simply means he using UNFAIR method of taking additional +4 (or little less) points. basically strenght of my army reduced to 4, which is absolutely non competitve.

3) at most of the maps its possible to place units out of range enemy lobber, so if you want to "take fun" you may always place your units as far as possible and wait. not sure its really fun though.AND if some player is able to do that, and another is not that means another player which places armies IN range of lobbers takes disadvantage which shouldnt be allowed.

again i dont argue that you cant place all your units out of range, i just mean that IF you understood your enemy have arty and you dont, you should attack him first, and not wait him for attack (untill he does itself).

if you think any of this point is wrong tell me why with number and good reasonings. i think if any of this point is correct then we should ban "wait for arty forces come"

Quote

my point exactly, a part of tactics is patience and striking at the right time

so do ou htink DO is really game of PATIENCE? patience is element of every game but we should keep patience/fun in optimal way.

lets see example if you have attacking army but decided to wait for my army with mortar which i should use w/o it.and i decided to stay and wait you attack

then if you understand that you have no chances in attacking then i also will understand it (since you dont attack me). so game becomes of competiteve for "your nerves" or simply waste of time. if i clearry understand that i have better edge than you i will simply wait. how can i make any mistke if i take this tactic? if i have enough time, nerves, and stupidity to waste my time such way then i will wait it forever.but i personally would just attack you and loose cause i think its pretty stupid waste of time for me waiting for your attack. and its not actually my "tactical error" but you may say "psychological error" but again i came for a fun not for a win. and if i face enemy just waits away from my lobbers for 2-3 games then i became to conclusion he is there to win and not to take fun.

« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 09:03:51 AM by alavet »

Logged

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.